Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. The economy of north-east Wales is prospering at the moment, but that is bringing with it much congestion, particularly on the roads. Will he meet the Transport Minister of the National Assembly for Wales as soon as possible to discuss the electrification of the Wrexham to Bidston line—a project that could take forward the general principles of shifting people from the roads to rail, improve access to Merseyside from north Wales and ensure that individuals travel to work by train, rather than in their cars, in areas such as the Deeside industrial estate?

Tony McNulty: I met my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to discuss that specific issue. I can confirm that the SRA is not proceeding with any closure process for the Halton curve. My hon. Friend will know that, although some work is planned for the Crewe-Weaver-Ditton section of the west coast main line route this year, the need to determine the curve's future is likely to rest, as she suggests, with the re-signalling work that needs to be done, currently in 2010. I certainly assure him that, at some stage between now and 2010, we will resolve the future of the Halton curve.

Motorcycle Accidents (Coventry)

Jim Cunningham: How many accidents involving motorcycles took place in Coventry in each year since 1997.

David Jamieson: In 1997, there were 81 accidents in Coventry involving at least one motorcycle. The figures for subsequent years are as follows: in 1998, there were 85; in 1999, there were 80; in 2000, there were 81; in 2001, there were 80; in 2002, there were 88; and in 2003, there were 99. Figures for 2004 are not yet available.

Alan Milburn: The hon. Lady may say that, but I understand that pensioners are gaining an average of £40 a week. I do not think that they consider it to be a mess.
	We also spent £7 million on advertising our tax credits, and six million hard-working families are benefiting from that today. We spent £6 million on advertising the new deal, which has helped 1 million people off benefit and into work. I know that the hon. Gentleman opposes that spending, and I suspect that that is because he opposes the programmes.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow any member of the Royal Family to marry a person of any religion or none.
	You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the position under the constitution, which dates back to the Act of Settlement 1701. That position is clear. If a member of the royal family—anyone in line to the succession—took it upon themselves to marry a Roman Catholic, they would automatically be excluded from the line of succession. There is no doubt about that and there is no recourse to ask permission of the monarch or anyone else. They are automatically excluded.
	That provision, which is discriminatory and applies only to Roman Catholics is wrong and should be removed from our statute law. There have been numerous attempts to remove it by, for example, my right hon. Friend Lord Forsyth in another place who intends to raise the matter again today, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and many others. I am not sure whether it has happened before, but yesterday, Cardinal O'Brien, the primate of Scotland, made a public statement as a result of my moving this Bill today. He said that the provision is clearly discriminatory and a breach of the human rights of members of the royal family, and that it should be repealed. I look to other members of the hierarchy to come out of the closet, or perhaps the sanctuary, and to move the campaign forward.
	Of course, one can ask whether such an act of discrimination is right. The answer is that it is clearly not right for any country to have in its constitution a prohibition that applies to only one religion. The French constitution forbids the wearing of religious dress in school, but that applies to all religions, which is quite different. The British prohibition applies only to Roman Catholics. For instance, Prince William, if he chose, could marry somebody who was Jewish or Muslim, or even an atheist or agnostic. He could even marry a satanist. That would be allowable. After all, the Royal Navy allows satanism, although not—apparently—animal sacrifices aboard ship. Is that acceptable?
	Is the provision logical? It is obviously illogical. For instance, Prince William would be barred from the succession if he were to marry a Roman Catholic, but if his bride became a Roman Catholic after the marriage ceremony, he could go on to become the monarch. That is ridiculous. A male member of the royal family, if he were so inclined, could choose to contract a civil partnership with a Roman Catholic man, under recent legislation.
	Out of the universe of eligible young women in Europe and around the world, the ban applies only to Roman Catholics. That infringes their human rights. Surely enough damage has been done by legislation telling members of the royal family whom they should marry. It is time to move on, let them fall in love with whoever they please and get on with it like everybody else.
	What are the objections to my modest Bill? The Prime Minister has been asked about the issue on numerous occasions. He says—he cannot say anything else—that he is against discrimination, but that he has other priorities, the issue is too complicated and the Government have better things to do. But what would happen if a young prince should meet a young Roman Catholic girl? Would we have legislation rushed through Parliament by the necessary date? That would be ridiculous when we could deal with the matter now.
	The Bill is very narrow. It is not complicated and it would not require amending or appealing vast quantities of Acts of Parliament. In pursuit of a recent Bill, the Government had to amend 57 Acts, but my Bill would require amending only three or four. The real reason the Government have not done this before is that they think that they would have to amend the Statute of Westminster and obtain the consent of the entire Commonwealth, including Australia. However, I am assured by those who advise me that that would not be necessary. My Bill would not affect the position of the monarch and therefore there would be no need to amend the Statute of Westminster.
	The argument that changing would be too difficult or complicated does not add up. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) in his place on the Front Bench. The Government pride themselves on attacking discrimination wherever it is found, so why do they allow this discrimination to exist in the British constitution of all constitutions?

Edward Leigh: The measure may be rather good otherwise, as my right hon. Friend says, but it is not appropriate. It perpetuates the myth that Catholics are disloyal. I accept that there was a problem with the gunpowder plot, but surely we could be forgiven after 300 or 400 years? The time has come to get rid of this discriminatory legislation.
	I was talking to my parish priest last Sunday and he told me that the last of the Catholic Relief Acts was passed as late as 1927. I was not aware of that. Up to that date, Dominicans, Jesuits or Franciscans entering Britain had to register with the Home Office. They had some sort of control order placed on them. It is hard to believe that such measures could exist within living memory.
	We got rid of those laws, so why do we retain this "grubby little secret" on our statute book? Like everyone, Catholics have the right to live in a society that is truly non-discriminatory and which values people for what they are.
	The time has come to pass this Bill into law, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. William Hague, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. John Burnett, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Francis Maude, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Stephen Pound and Mr. John Bercow.

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Tests: Approved Language Translators

'In the Road Traffic Act 1988, before section 163 insert—
	"Requirement for approved translators
	162A Test language translators (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require that, if a person who is not fluent in the English language submits himself for a relevant test and wishes to be accompanied at the test by a translator, he may only be so accompanied if the translator is approved in accordance with regulations under this section in relation to a language in which the person is fluent.
	(2) The regulations may make provision in relation to the approval of persons as translators and may, in particular, include provision—
	(a) in relation to the making of applications for approval,
	(b) for the payment in respect of applications for approval, or in connection with approvals, of fees of a prescribed amount,
	(c) in relation to the period for which an approval is to have effect and withdrawing approval,
	(d) authorising the imposition of conditions on an approval,
	(e) for an appeal to lie to the Transport Tribunal against a refusal of an application for approval, the imposition of conditions on an approval or the withdrawal of approval,
	(f) prescribing circumstances in which an approved translator may not act as such,
	(g) as to the evidencing by persons of their status as approved translators, and
	(h) authorising the Secretary of State to make available (with or without charge) information about approved translators.
	(3) The following are relevant tests—
	(a) tests of competence to drive a motor vehicle prescribed by virtue of section 89(3) of this Act or section 36(5) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,
	(b) examinations of ability and fitness (or continued ability and fitness) to give driving instruction for which provision is made by virtue of section 132 of this Act, and
	(c) emergency control assessments under section 133A of this Act.".'. —[Mr. Jamieson.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: The new clause would enable the increasing volume of funds obtained by so-called safety camera partnerships to be reinvested in education or training programmes undertaken by local authority members of those partnerships. The Government have introduced proposals for road safety grants in clause 1, but we believe that their proposals are de minimis in comparison with the potential of new clause 1.
	I am pleased to say that our proposal in the new clause has been warmly supported by the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety and I understand that the Liberal Democrats also support it. In Committee, furthermore, it was not only supported but enthusiastically spoken to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who I am sorry to say is not in his place this afternoon. He pressed the Minister hard to justify the Government's belief that the revenue raised from speed cameras should not be reinvested in education and training programmes for drivers.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The course could be undertaken on a wholly confidential basis—without commitment, as they say. Indeed, such a course could include people such as Mr. Speaker if they wanted to join it. I know that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is as enthusiastic a supporter of the IAM as I am.
	I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will make warm and welcoming noises about new clause 2. It addresses a lacuna that we identified in Committee. What could possibly be wrong with encouraging people to improve their own driving and thereby benefit from a reduction in penalty points in the circumstances set out in the provision?
	New clause 3 is on a slightly different topic. It would raise the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from two years to five years. I hope that the Government will accept it almost without demur, because I understand that such an increase in the maximum penalty for dangerous driving has been Government policy for some time. However, they have rather kicked into touch their review of road traffic offences involving bad driving. The Government commissioned the Halliday report in May 2003, yet it was produced for public gaze only on the last day that we considered the Bill in Committee—so it was hardly on the fast track. The result is that the Government have been able to avoid legislating on, and changing the penalties for, road traffic offences involving bad driving.
	New clause 3, and one or two of the other new clauses to which I shall address my remarks shortly, is meant to ensure that the Bill deals with issues on which consultation has effectively taken place. The Government have said publicly that they support an increase in the maximum penalty for dangerous driving, which is currently two years' imprisonment, but under my proposal, it would be five years instead, thus mirroring the increase from 10 to 14 years that has taken place in the maximum period of imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving.
	I may be unduly cynical, but I suspect that the Government's inhibition relates to the fact such a proposal could result in a lot more people going to prison. Hon. Members who believe that bad driving is dangerous—indeed, it can be lethal—do not wish the number of available prison places to dictate policy. We believe that the policy should be established by Parliament—that we should establish what we think are the appropriate penalties and offences, and that the appropriate number of prison places should be made available.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend's assumption is correct. The Government admit on page 30 of their document "Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad Driving" that the proposals that he is talking about
	"could create an additional demand for about 800 prison places.
	It continues:
	The great bulk of these would result from increasing the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from 2 to 5 years' imprisonment, to which the Government is already committed, when resources are available."
	Does he not think that if the Government are already committed to that, they should get on with it? They can find enough resources to advertise Government programmes. Why cannot they find the necessary resources for this proposal?

Christopher Chope: Indeed, I have that document open on page 30, and was about to quote from it. It is encouraging to know that my right hon. Friend and I are very much on the same wavelength, and he is absolutely right, because this an other issue on which the Government talk a good talk. They go along to the road safety lobbies and lobbies including the relatives of victims of serious and fatal road accidents, and they say, "We're on your side." However, as is clear from what has been said, we have a policy to which the Government are already committed—raising the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from two to five years—but they are not prepared to sign up to it because of the resource implications. What a perverse arrangement.
	We have tabled new clause 3 to give the Government the opportunity to endorse today a proposal that is already their policy, rather than to play the delaying game, as they have been doing until now. How else can one explain a period of 21 months between the launching of an inquiry into road traffic offences involving bad driving and the publication of that inquiry's report, which extends only to some 31 pages? That does not give the impression of a Government who are seriously committed to taking tough, deterrent action against the worst drivers—the dangerous drivers—and they could address that today by accepting new clause 3.
	New clause 4 is also a reflection of what the Government say is their policy. Again, they are talking about such a policy, but they are not yet prepared to sign up to it. By tabling new clause 4, we created the opportunity to invite the Government to sign up today to what they say is their own policy:
	"If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class he is guilty of an offence."
	That sounds like a lot of common sense. If people deliberately drive a vehicle for which they do not hold a licence—in other words, they are not qualified and have not passed the appropriate test—they should not be on the road. Surely, if while driving such a vehicle on the road they are involved in an accident from which a death results, that conduct should constitute a specific offence. New clause 4 would create a new offence of causing the death of another person in the circumstances that I describe.
	New clause 6, in similar vein, would make causing death by driving while disqualified a separate offence. It states:
	"If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while disqualified from driving by order of a court he is guilty of an offence."
	Again, that is canvassed in the document, "Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad Driving", and the debate will give the Minister the opportunity to explain why the Government have not already taken such action, as they have joined the campaign that we have waged to try to get disqualified drivers off the road and deter them from returning to it. New clause 6 would emphasise to those people who are thinking of driving while disqualified that, if they are involved in an accident that results in death while they are doing so, they could spend a lot of time locked up in prison irrespective of whether they are wholly to blame for the consequences that flow from that accident. The argument is that they would have brought the guilt upon themselves by their own conduct in driving on the road while disqualified.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend makes a good point.
	The Minister put up the defence against the proposal in Committee that, if vehicles travelled faster, the consequences of any accidents in which they were involved would be greater. No one would disagree with that, but we are suggesting that the mere presence of lorries that are limited to travelling at 40 mph on single carriageway roads is creating a lot of driver frustration, which leads to people taking unnecessary risks by trying to overtake when it is probably not safe to do so.
	We know that the frustration among the motoring public is such that at least one major delivery company—I think that it is the company that delivers for Tesco—has a notice emblazoned on the back of its heavy goods vehicles to show that they are limited to travelling at 40 mph on single carriageway roads. It has done that because people have complained that the vehicles should be travelling faster. Before the proliferation of speed cameras, I suspect that many heavy goods vehicles travelled at nearer 50 mph than 40 mph when circumstances permitted, but given today's tighter enforcement, they are going at only 40 mph, which is creating driver frustration and consequent road danger. If new clause 12 were accepted, it would be a move in the right direction towards improving road safety.
	I shall leave the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) to make his own arguments about new clause 16 because he tabled the measure. However, Conservative Members are on the same side as him because we want more support for speed awareness courses. While I am on that subject, I can tell the House about a successful day of action carried out by the Hampshire constabulary. I think that it happened last week, but it was certainly reported in the New Milton Advertiser over the weekend. There is a dangerous piece of C road in the heart of the New Forest with a standard 40 mph speed limit. Hampshire police detected several vehicles travelling in excess of that speed and the drivers were given the option of either accepting a fixed penalty notice or having a discussion with a group of people who had owned animals that had been killed on the road, most of which were ponies. Not surprisingly, most of the motorists opted for the discussion.
	A lot of interesting information came out of the process. Many people had not realised how dangerous the road was or how common such accidents involving animals were. Some had not even realised that the animals had owners. Although the animals are New Forest ponies, they have owners, so much distress and hardship is caused if they are run over by motorists who travel too fast. Many motorists had not realised the consequences such collisions for them and their cars.
	I support such enforcement using discretion at the roadside, although any motorist who was driving extremely fast was referred to the magistrates court or had to accept a fixed penalty with no argument. Such driver awareness programmes are a positive way forward for road safety. They are better than just having speed cameras because that system does not allow the issue to be addressed in the sensitive way that Hampshire police employed. As I have said earlier, sufficient numbers of police officers need to be devoted to road traffic responsibilities to carry out such a scheme, but we will put that right when we get into government.
	New clause 19 arose from a further debate in Committee after it became apparent that there was no system of mitigation if people were given fixed penalty notices in circumstances in which they believed that, if a police officer had been at the scene, he would have exercised discretion and issued a caution or warning instead of a penalty. My thinking about the new clause partly arises from a constituency case. One of my constituents was caught out by a speed camera on a road on which the speed limit had recently been reduced from 40 mph to 30 mph. The driver had not realised due to an oversight that the speed limit had changed.
	My constituent received a standard form to fill in to accept that he was driving the vehicle at the time. The form said that if he had mitigating circumstances, he should refer the matter to the magistrates court. He did that, but when the case reached court, the magistrate said that the court had no discretion on the issuing of penalty points. All hon. Members will have heard of constituents who have thought it unjust that they have received three penalty points as a consequence of a fixed penalty notice.
	I know of another person who was convicted of speeding, despite the fact that the temporary speed limit sign on the road had blown over in the wind. I am sure that we can all think of similar examples. A wise law would take into account individual circumstances and allow proper discretion. Indeed, that is the type of law that we have in a mature democracy. A Stalinist society, however, makes an unthinking demand: "Thou shalt comply and if thou hast not, whatever the explanation, thou art guilty of an offence for which thou art subject to a fixed penalty." We need to take a more mature approach and allow some discretion and that would be the effect of incorporating new clause 19 into the law.

Greg Knight: So far, this debate has been excellent and we have heard a number of diverging views. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) referred to the mood music on the Conservative Benches, which he identified as pro-motorist. I do not take that as an insult, but I do not think that it is particularly accurate either. I would say that we were trying to achieve fairness and balance, because we support lower speed limits where appropriate, as well as supporting higher ones in certain cases, as shown in new clause 12. New clauses 3 and 4 propose higher penalties and new offences, while new clause 19 proposes increased provision for mitigation.
	We also support the tightening of the law so that, in appropriate cases, motorists cannot be prosecuted. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to the case of a motorist sitting in a line of traffic using a mobile phone. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) wanted to know where that had happened and how the case had been brought to my hon. Friend's attention. That is not the point. The point is that, under the present law, a prosecution could be brought in those circumstances. We ought to ensure that that could not happen, and that the police prosecute motorists only when their use of a mobile phone is clearly interfering with the standard of their driving.
	I warmly support speed awareness courses. I would go further and introduce highway awareness courses for those who are not motorists but who have to cross the highway, namely children and other pedestrians. However, that is perhaps a debate for another day. The arrangements in place for speed awareness courses should never amount to a deterrent to a person who has been given the option to attend one. A case was brought to my attention by a personal friend who lives in Reigate and who was caught speeding by a speed camera. When the papers came through—he showed me the documentation involved—he was offered the option to attend a speed awareness course on a particular date and at a certain cost. Because of his diary commitments, however, he decided that he would rather take the penalty points and pay the fine, as that would be less disruptive to the work that he had been contracted to carry out on that day.
	There are many other such cases. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross suggested that people might be deterred from attending a course for other reasons, perhaps because they were unwaged or of limited means. I hope that the Minister will explain what guidance exists on requiring motorists to pay for speed awareness courses. If a motorist can ask for, and be given, time to pay a fine by weekly instalments, surely a similar provision should apply to the payment of the fee for a speed awareness course. The whole thrust of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is that we do not want the fees and the other arrangements for speed awareness courses to have a deterrent effect. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether a person of limited means—with no savings and perhaps no income, for example—would be able to apply for time to pay the fee if they were offered the option of attending a speed awareness course.
	I look forward, I hope, shortly, to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) refer to his new clause 7, which I find interesting. In the absence of hearing his argument, however, I cannot support it currently. I am particularly concerned about proposed new subsection (8), which indicates that two speed limits could be set, one by the Secretary of State, who, by the nature of the fact that he must examine the wider picture, would tend to pick the correct speed limit for the stretch of road in question, whereas a local council, under pressure from local lobby groups, might seek to appease a vociferous minority by setting a lower speed limit than appropriate. I therefore have great concerns.
	In certain parts of the country, local authorities already seek to undermine—I suppose that that is the correct word—speed limits that are in place. I am thinking of the erection of speed humps. In many cases, the speed limit on a particular road is 30 mph, but the local authority has erected speed humps such that it is impossible to travel at anything close to 30 mph without wrecking one's vehicle. If there is a case for having traffic travelling at, say, 20 mph or 15 mph, why is that not the speed limit? That sort of incident causes outrage and anger in local communities and among motorists. If there is a compelling case for lowering the speed limit, perhaps near a school, I would support that rather than leaving the speed limit at 30 mph and erecting speed humps.
	I shall give the House a particular example, which I am aware does not come from my constituency. Occasionally, I must travel to Derby, and my usual route involves a road called Grampian way. Some years ago, the Labour-controlled city council in Derby decided to construct a plethora of speed humps along Grampian way. Initially, that was done under pressure from local residents who wanted traffic-calming measures—they did not specify speed humps, but that is what they got. Three of those speed humps regularly fouled the exhaust system on two of the motor vehicles that I own, no matter at what speed one sought to negotiate them. The pleasure of the local community at achieving traffic calming in the area soon turned to dismay and anger, because local residents realised that not only were those speed humps extremely intrusive but they had increased pollution—not just airborne pollution but, particularly irritatingly, noise pollution during the evening, such that they were regularly kept awake as heavier vehicles in particular negotiated the speed humps. A campaign then developed against those speed humps on Grampian way. In one of the safe Labour wards within the Derby city council area, an anti-speed hump candidate stood in the city council elections—

Rob Marris: I find new clause 16 very interesting. I say that as someone who spent five and a half years as a professional driver, three of those as a bus driver, principally driving trolley buses, and who never had an accident of any description—whether someone having an accident with me or me having an accident with someone. That was because of the superb training that I received in Vancouver, Canada, from what was then called B. C. Hydro, which ran the metropolitan buses within the Greater Vancouver regional district. It is important to encourage people to have training courses. We already have a statutory driver re-education scheme for those who fall foul of the drink-driving laws. New clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is very attractive.
	I want to focus my brief remarks on new clause 4. Some Members will know, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford knows, that there was recently an extremely sad case in Wolverhampton in which a 12-year-old boy, Jamie Mason, was knocked down by a driver who had no driving licence, no insurance, and, I believe, no tax. That boy was killed. That driver was speeding in a suburban area according to the police evidence, and was 50 per cent. over the drink-drive limit, and that boy died. Having pleaded guilty, the driver got a two-month custodial sentence. On behalf of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) in particular, who cannot be here today and who wished this point to be made forcefully, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), we find the sentencing powers and the discretion of the magistrates in relation to that case, in which the death of a 12-year-old boy occurred, extraordinary. We find a gap in the law.
	I must say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who tabled new clause 4, that I do not think that the wording is quite right, but he has identified a gap in the law. Another way to address that sort of issue might be that if someone is driving a motor vehicle, or to use the words of the amendment,
	"a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place other than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class",
	such an individual should face a presumption if not an absolute legal certainty that he or she, driving without a licence, is driving carelessly. That would then match up with a new offence of causing death by careless driving, which has been a gap in our law. Under the Bill, there can be three offences of careless driving, dangerous driving or causing death by dangerous driving but not the natural fourth offence of causing death by careless driving.
	In my view and that of my two Wolverhampton colleagues, that is the situation which, very sadly, faced young Jamie Mason. The individual who was driving had no licence. New clause 4 or what I am suggesting now—that someone would be presumed to have been driving carelessly if he or she was involved in an accident and had no licence—would not, of course, bring young Jamie back, but it would at least go some way towards dissuading people from engaging in such activity, and preventing the occurrence of another extremely sad incident of that kind.
	I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give thought to this issue.

David Jamieson: This debate has been very good and extraordinarily wide ranging. I have seldom seen put together in one group so many new clauses that represent so many different aspects of a Bill, but it has given us a good opportunity—this is almost like a Second Reading debate—to get stuck into some of these important issues.
	New clause 1 seeks to amend section 38 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 on the unified power for the Secretary of State to fund speed cameras, which enables the Secretary of State to allow for payments to be made to public authorities in the safety camera programme netting off scheme to cover certain costs associated with issuing and enforcing conditional offers from fixed penalty notices for speeding offences. The money to fund the costs is reclaimed from receipts generated by fines. The receipts are passed from the Department for Constitutional Affairs to the Department for Transport, which reimburses the partnerships for approved expenditure incurred. Any surplus generated is paid over to Her Majesty's Treasury in the form of Consolidated Fund extra receipts.
	The new clause seeks to include the funding of educational or training programmes among the allowable expenditure from reclaimed receipts. However, the new clause is not required. The safety camera programme is delivering positive results under current rules on what the funding can be used for, and there is no reason to seek to change the rules that determine what can be funded by that income at present.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to clause 1. That allows for local authorities to be funded by other revenue streams to enable them to fund the educational and training activities mentioned in the new clause. The safety camera programme has a distinct and different function: to strengthen detection, enforcement and deterrence of speeding and red light offences, which we have not heard much about in these debates, at places on the road network with particular problems. It complements the wider promotion of road safety already provided in the wider funding of the police and local authorities.
	Opposition politicians—often spurring on some of the things we see in newspapers—and critics of the safety camera programme seek to undermine its success in reducing road deaths and injuries by making unfounded allegations that the police and local authorities are using it as a "stealth tax". We did not hear the hon. Member for Christchurch mention those words today, which must be something of a record. The present legislation and the way in which the safety camera partnership works demonstrates that that is not that, since it provides that the programme can be applied only to the deployment of cameras. That means that the police and local authorities have no incentive to deploy cameras for any other reason, however well intentioned they may be. It is important that we maintain public confidence that safety cameras are deployed for one purpose and one purpose alone.
	It is unfortunate that, again today, the hon. Member for Christchurch made out that that was not the case. He used the glib phrase that we have greed cameras, not speed cameras, which will again feed little headlines in newspapers to undermine what the cameras are doing—reducing death and injury on our roads. As I have said, it is particularly children who benefit from that—mainly in urban areas, I have to say. Fewer children are being killed and injured on our roads now. I am very pleased about that. I think that the cameras have made a major contribution to improving the position.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to say that some of the speed awareness and driver improvement courses for those who offend should be funded out of this income, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made the point extremely well: it is the offender who should pay. Effectively, the hon. Member for Christchurch is saying that the offenders course should be paid for by the taxpayer. I do not agree. If someone breaks the law and goes on one of those courses, they should pay for it. It should not be subsidised by the taxpayer.

David Jamieson: It is the case that these courses have been pioneered in some parts of the country. Because they have worked so well in certain parts, we want them to be promoted more widely across the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill puts in place many measures that will ensure that we get consistency across the country, although there should also be some local discretion. I do not want to remove that entirely.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch again alluded to cameras that were in the wrong place or that were not doing their job. We have trodden this ground many times. It was nearly 15 months ago that I challenged one of his predecessors on the Opposition Front Bench to tell us where are the cameras that are in the wrong place. As yet, 15 months on, after many invitations from me, the number of those sites that the hon. Gentleman and his friends have identified is precisely zero. He has not told us of one single site where cameras are in the wrong place—so it would be helpful if he would stop making comments unless he can back them up with solid facts, which he has declined to do so far.
	New clause 2 is designed to make the benefits of a course available not only to offenders whose cases are dealt with by the courts, but to those who have acquired penalty points through the fixed penalty system. I am not unsympathetic to that aspiration in the longer term, but we must proceed gradually.
	I shall explain some of the background, because retraining for road traffic offenders takes different shapes and forms, and there has been confusion about the different schemes in operation. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that since the early 1990s, the police have dealt with some careless driving offenders by offering them the opportunity to attend a one and a half day driver improvement course at their own expense. They can do that only if the police officers involved believe that the retraining will serve road safety better than a prosecution. If the course is not completed, the prosecution will be pursued.
	Courses are provided in collaboration with the police by independent course providers using the national course model. The management content and applicability of courses are matters for the police and involve the Association of Chief Police Officers, but they have no statutory basis.
	During the past few years, the police in several parts of the country have extended that approach to speeding offenders, which has given rise to a range of speed awareness courses that have been offered in lieu of fixed penalties. Similarly, although those are a matter for the police, the majority of such offences are detected remotely by cameras and the criteria for offering a speed awareness course are more automatic. It is important for the Government to know how well the different courses perform, because they may correct bad driving habits before they be come entrenched.
	The Bill is rather different. Its starting point is the drink-driving rehabilitation scheme, which was introduced by the Road Traffic Act 1991 and piloted from 1992 to 1999. The hon. Member for Christchurch may have been involved in introducing that legislation. It is clear from the details that Parliament did not want to allow people who committed offences as serious as drink-driving to have a remission in their disqualification period without rigorous provisions. They included the courts being responsible for the decision to offer a course, ensuring that courses were available and checking whether the offender had successfully completed the course. Before the scheme was adopted nationally, firm evidence was sought and obtained to ensure that it was successful in reducing reoffending. The amendment would encourage motorists to go to court in the hope of avoiding a fixed penalty.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford spoke to new clause 16. I praise his excellent work as co-chair of PACTS—the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. He has a long-standing interest in such matters and is a guiding inspiration to many of us—I am leading up to saying that I cannot accept his new clause. However, speed awareness courses have been adopted by some police forces as an alternative to prosecution for speeding offences. The driver improvement scheme is overseen by a steering group in which key Government Departments, including mine, participate.
	I understand that existing speed awareness courses have evolved in a less regulated way and there have been some differences in practice and some inconsistency in eligibility for courses in different parts of the country, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) said. I am also advised that the position has improved and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that such matters should be dealt with uniformly and consistently. However, the courses are the responsibility of the police and are offered at their discretion. It would not be appropriate for central Government to step in and regulate them. I am sympathetic to the ideas behind the amendment, but we must allow time for them to roll out and allow ACPO to take the lead in ensuring consistency and rigorous standards.

Eric Martlew: I want to speak to new clause 15. Hon. Members might realise that it is similar to a private Member's Bill that I introduced last year, which unfortunately did not get a Second Reading. I have tabled the new clause to try to find out whether the Government have changed their policy on the measure.
	We still have the problem that more than 500 children suffer serious head injuries and more than 36 are killed due to incidents involving cycles each year, but about a third could be saved if they wore helmets. The new clause would require children under the age of 16 who were cycling on a public road or in a public place to wear helmets. Things have changed, however, since I introduced my Bill. Much was made by its opponents, some of whom are here today, of the fact that the British Medical Association did not support it. Since the Second Reading of the Road Safety Bill, the BMA have looked at the issue again, and they support making the wearing of a helmet compulsory for both children and adults. I do not believe that we can make helmet wearing compulsory for adults, because once they are 16 people can make up their own mind. However, it is the responsibility of the Government and the public to protect children.
	When I introduced my Bill, I encountered a great deal of opposition from organisations that sell bicycles. I received many letters, especially from small cycle shops, which have been given misinformation by the Cyclists Touring Club. Since then, Halfords, the largest retailer of cycles in the country, held a board meeting, at which it concluded that, even though the measure could affect its business, it would be unethical not to support the Bill. It therefore supports making the wearing of helmets compulsory for children. Hon. Members will remember receiving little cards from the CTC giving seven reasons for opposing the Bill. A complaint was made to the Advertising Standards Authority, which found that many of the CTC's claims were spurious and ruled against the organisation.
	The last time that we debated this issue, therefore, the House and hon. Members were misled. The position has changed, but what we really want is a change in the Government's view. Before I introduced my Bill, there was a great deal of debate about the issue in Cabinet. Some Cabinet Ministers supported the proposals, some opposed them, and they decided that they could not agree. That was a great pity. However, the problem remains. The number of youngsters who are being injured is probably increasing.

Rob Marris: Unusually, in a sense I am arguing for both. I am not seeking for the Government the power to retro-fit black boxes, but the new clause would allow them to access information contained in black boxes already to fitted to vehicles. So this is a question not of retro-fitting but of future fitting to vehicles that do not have them, and the retrospective accessing of information from vehicles on the road that already have such boxes.
	These devices cost between £200 and £300, which is a lot of money in vehicle manufacturers' terms but perhaps not so much in safety terms. I stress that the new clause relates only to impacts causing injury; such a device would not be a Big Brother in the cab that could be used, pursuant to the new clause, to "do" people for speeding. The police, accident investigators acting on the state's behalf in criminal prosecutions and those wishing to pursue civil proceedings could interrogate the information in a black box only when there has been an injury following a collision. That is a key point in terms of public acceptance.
	Norwich Union is already giving insurance discounts to certain drivers in a pay-as-you-drive scheme that uses such technology to determine how many miles they are driving, at what time of day, and so on. Under the terms of such a policy, the person in question agrees not to drive between 11 pm and 6 am. The technology is already being used by the private sector, and it is being introduced by motor manufacturers not for vehicle safety reasons in the sense of preventing and investigating accidents, but in order to prevent injuries such as those relating to airbags, to which I have referred.
	I mentioned cases in north America in which such information has already been used. According to Maclean's magazine of 22 March 2004—for those few Members who do not know, it is a weekly Canadian news magazine—
	"Eric Gauthier, 26, was convicted of dangerous driving after the data recorder for the airbag in his Pontiac Sunfire proved he was driving 154 km an hour—three times the limit—seconds before he hit another car, killing its driver. This is the first . . . case in which a car's black box evidence was accepted in court."
	More than a year ago, the Canadian authorities were using such information for criminal prosecutions. In Ontario it has been used since the late 1990s.
	The Department for Transport does not know whether such information is being used for prosecution in this country, but I suspect that it is not. I asked a question for written answer last year—addressed to the Home Office, not the Department for Transport:
	"To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic prosecutions used evidence based on black box vehicle data recorders to indicate the speed of the vehicles involved in (a) 2002 and (b) 2003."
	The Home Office did not know—although to be fair to the Minister concerned, I must explain that the exact answer was:
	"The information is not collected centrally."—[Official Report, 26 April 2004; Vol. 420, c.765W. ]
	During the last Session, I tabled early-day motion 1186 on that very issue, expressing disappointment, and it seemed to me that the Road Safety Bill would be a very appropriate means by which to introduce a new clause on the subject.
	Data collected from black boxes could be used for criminal and civil proceedings following an accident in which injury occurred, pursuant to my new clause. Such data could also be used for some medical purposes and for research and crash prevention. I have referred to the court proceedings angle, but for medical purposes, the data from black boxes could be used retrospectively in trauma research to improve injury predictions, support decisions about service provision and improve the responses of emergency services to crashes and so forth. A study showed how measured
	"crash direction and force data can markedly improve injury prediction, algorithms, biomechanics, cost of injury research, and identification of problem injuries".
	That was a quote from a study by R. Martinez in 2003—"Medical Use and Emergency Response, SAE Vehicle Recorder Topical Technical Symposium"— from a symposium of June 2003 in Virginia USA.
	The data could also be used for road safety research, as well as the medical research to which I have adverted. It could be made available to bona fide researchers, as the new clause would allow, to improve the understanding of the "crashworthiness" of vehicles and the potential for crash avoidance. The data will help researchers find out what went wrong before a crash—perhaps a Gautier going at 154 kph in a 50 kph zone in Montreal. The quality of crash investigation statistics could improve substantially, which also ties in with new clause 20 in the same group.
	We need to bear in mind that cars change. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), having been a solicitor, will remember that when road traffic accidents led to injury, the police used to go out and measure the skid marks. That used to provide some indication, usually within about 10 or 15 per cent., of the speed at which the vehicle was travelling before the brakes were applied. It would then be possible to measure the point at which perhaps a child had been knocked down. With anti-lock braking systems, that can no longer be done, because those systems, which are fitted to most cars sold in the UK today and have been fitted to many for several years, stop the wheels from locking. There are no longer any skid marks, so information that used to be vital to the police in investigating road traffic accidents is no longer available. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford nodding in agreement. If black boxes were fitted to every new vehicle, and if the information in those already fitted to vehicles on the road were made available to crash investigators, it would help with prosecutions or civil proceedings, and also with research and crash prevention.
	An analogy could be made with tachographs in heavy goods vehicles, which have been around for years. There is some evidence that drivers who are aware that black boxes—vehicle data recording devices—are fitted to their vehicles actually drive more carefully. The Metropolitan police conducted a study and attributed a 25 per cent. reduction in crash rates to a safe driving programme that included the fitting of VDRDs. I appreciate that that poses the question of how much of the 25 per cent. improvement was due to the safe driving programme. An awful lot, I suspect, but some it could have been connected with the fact that the drivers were aware of the black boxes within the vehicles. A Dutch study of driver response to black boxes used in several vehicle fleets estimated a crash reduction of 20 per cent. Again, that is not necessarily cause and effect, but one starts to see a correlation. A German study of young drivers found that awareness of a black box being fitted to a vehicle forced a change in driving habits and made the young drivers much safer.
	Clearly, we are talking about a potentially important safety device and the technology is already there. Black boxes are already fitted to many vehicles and the practice of fitting them is likely to become more widespread. As far as I can determine, however, the information is not accessible to researchers, investigating authorities or the courts. The problem is that standards differ between different motor manufacturers who sell vehicles in the UK. Understandably, for data protection reasons, those manufacturers are reluctant to allow anyone access to the information contained in the black boxes that they have fitted to vehicles.
	The UK Government should take a lead within the EU on the issue of vehicle data recording devices. Pursuant to my new clause, or something like it, we should specify a date, perhaps 2009, by which all vehicles sold in the United Kingdom would have to be fitted with vehicle data recording devices and access would have to be permitted to the software in those devices.
	As one of the 25 member states of the European Union, we should be pushing for such initiatives to be taken across the EU. It is certainly the case that with some EU countries we would be pushing at an open door. To set a date of 2009—four years hence—may seem to give only a short time for the development of such sophisticated technology but we are in no way starting from scratch. The technology exists; it is already being used in other countries and is increasingly being fitted to cars. I urge the Government to consider seriously my new clause, or something like it, so that we can get a move on and save lives. If people change their driving habits and/or we can obtain information that allows better crash investigations and better medical investigation of the injuries sustained in crashes, so that we know how the injuries came about because we know more about the crash, we shall lessen injuries and save lives.
	The new clause is simple and, I hope, fairly straightforward. It includes penalties for people who interfere with the devices—because, sadly, in this day and age one has to do that. However, the thrust of the new clause is to get the Department for Transport, working with other Departments, to make mandatory the fitting of VDRDs—so-called black boxes—to all new vehicles from a given date, which I hope will be 2009, and to allow access to data that is already being gathered from the black boxes fitted to many vehicles in the UK.

John Thurso: I rise to speak to new clause 20, which would create a road accident investigation service. I have done my best to draft the provision in a way that the Government will find acceptable—a forlorn hope, but I keep trying.
	The new clause states that, within 12 months of the coming into force of the Act, a road accident investigation service will be set up, which would, first,
	"investigate the causes of road accidents particularly where they result in death or serious injury".
	Secondly, it would
	commission and publish the results of research into the causes and consequences of road accidents, and . . . make recommendations to the Secretary of State".
	The rest of the new clause would permit the Secretary of State to set up the necessary administration to achieve that end.
	I realise that the new clause may not find favour with the House or the Government, but the subject is serious. The proposal is really a probing amendment. The reason for it is that for all other modes of transport there is a body to investigate accidents, look into their causes and make recommendations. When we discuss road accidents in Westminster Hall, in Committee, as we did on the Bill, and in the Chamber, people often refer to statistics showing that, in terms of casualties, the equivalent of a major rail crash occurs almost daily on our roads. It is thus important that we can establish accurately not only the primary cause of an accident but also the contributing factors.
	When I debate with people outside the House whether speed cameras and other measures are effective, I notice that those in favour of a measure will use all available data to prove, for example, that speeding is a major contributory factor, while other people will argue that the road engineering of a particular stretch of road is the problem, or whatever it may be. In many cases, the answer is that there is no single, overriding factor that is the sole cause of an accident. Often an accident may have a primary cause, but other factors contribute. We do not always hold a proper investigation of accidents so that we can build up a picture and a pattern based on evidence.
	I am interested in new clause 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), and the concept of using a black box, because that would fit neatly into new clause 20 and the ability to base what we do on scientific and engineering analyses of what is actually happening. For example, we might win the battle with those few remaining doubters in respect of speed cameras if we could say, "Here are 10 accidents. Here is what has happened. Here are the primary factors. Here are the contributory factors. This is why it is a good idea to put a camera in a certain location."
	We might also be able to consider how often accidents are caused by the state of the vehicle. I do not know, for example, whether our current MOT certificate laws, which we all take for granted, are as up to date as they should be. It would be interesting to know whether the quality of modern cars is such that the number of those accidents has diminished since the passage of that legislation. I simply do not know and I am not sure whether that information is readily available.
	A body that exists specifically for investigating accidents, commissioning research and making recommendations would be a very useful start in the fight for greater road safety. I have been told that one argument against such a body is the question whether it would fit in with the police. How would it cut across what they might do? If one considers what happens with rail or marine accidents, where accident investigation branches exist, the function of the police investigation is to determine whether there is criminal responsibility.
	The involvement, as may happen in some cases, of health and safety investigators in no way prevents the accident branch for that mode of transport from undertaking its work. In practical terms—for example, with a rail crash—police arrive and look at their bit and the health safety people arrive and look at what they are interested in, after which the accident is handed over to the rail accident investigation branch for full investigation.
	Such a body need not be large or particularly costly. A great deal of its work would involve collating information, but it could make a positive contribution to road safety. I will not press new clause 20 to a Division, but I hope that the Government will consider whether there is not some merit in it.

Charlotte Atkins: I wonder what the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) thinks of this amendment. When he took the relevant private Member's Bill through the House, he was definitely of the view that he wanted to close all of what he considered to be loopholes. Clearly, I appreciate that the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 has been immensely valuable. It introduced stringent suitability checks on operators, drivers and vehicles. To introduce this loophole would open up gaps that we would want filled. The exemption from licensing, which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) wants to introduce, was deliberately omitted from the 1998 Act, even though that situation does not exist outside London. It therefore seems perverse to suggest that we should open up this loophole when the Act was originally planned to ensure that there was no such loophole.
	I appreciate, of course, that public authorities using unlicensed operators, drivers and vehicles would do their own suitability checks. I have concerns about that approach, however, bearing in mind that we are talking about very vulnerable people, including special needs children being transported in such unlicensed vehicles. I worry about whether the checks would be suitably robust. The responses to the consultation on this proposal also raised concerns about the thoroughness of checks. My understanding is that if a driver had been checked. but then went off sick, someone else could take his place and that person would not have been vetted.
	There is also the issue of fair competition. Clearly—
	It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [11 January].

That the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

Phil Hope: Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate. It gives me another good opportunity to clarify the Government's view on what he has said this evening and similar points that he raised in the local government settlement debate in the House on 2 February. He, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), who is also present in the Chamber this evening, and Councillor Howard Briggs, the leader of Southend council, to whom the hon. Member for Southend, West referred, have engaged in lengthy correspondence with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about Southend's budget position. They will all know our responses.
	Let us establish some facts. Southend has received generous grant settlements from this Government. It will receive a 4 per cent. grant increase from Government in 2005–06. This is the third year in a row in which Southend has had an above-inflation increase. Southend has also received specific grants for particular purposes—next year estimated to be some £26,627 million—on top of the 4 per cent. basic grant increase. Moreover, additional funds through innovations such as e-government, from which all councils have benefited, will also benefit Southend. Southend cannot possibly reconcile the 4 per cent. grant increase, nearly £27 million of specific grants and other grants that it receives, with claims that it has been underfunded.
	Southend keeps raising its council tax by more than the rate of inflation. I understand that it has set a 5.25 per cent. council tax increase for 2005–06. I am sure that it has not gone unnoticed among the council tax payers of Southend that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimates an average council tax increase for England of 4 per cent. next year. Therefore, Southend is setting a council tax increase of 5.25 per cent., whereas the average council tax increase for the rest of the country is 4 per cent. Many Southend residents might want to ask why their council tax increases are consistently above the average when the council has consistently had above-inflation grant increases in the past and will do so in future.
	The council tax increase of 5.25 per cent. next year comes on top of increases of 6.8 per cent. in this financial year, when the average increase across the country was 5.9 per cent. and—these figures are extraordinary—an increase of 15.7 per cent. in 2003–04 when the average was 12.9 per cent. Do the hon. Members for Southend, West and for Rochford and Southend, East believe that council tax increases of 15.7 per cent., 6.8 per cent. and 5.25 per cent., which are all above the national average for each year, are justified? We have detected a pattern. Southend keeps setting council tax increases that are not only well above inflation, but well above the average increase in the country.
	The hon. Gentleman should note that Southend benefits from the floor system that the Government have introduced to the local government grant formula. He mentioned the scroll presented at Downing street in which Southend asked to be lifted from the grant floor. In fact, the floor protects Southend's grant to the tune of some £3 million. If the Government had not imposed a floor on the increases that councils are receiving, Southend would be £3 million less well off next year. As a result of our calculation, Southend will receive not only what is due to it but £3 million more, because we wanted to ensure that no council received an increase amounting to less than the inflation rate.
	We have given Southend generous grant settlements and it has benefited from the floor system. But it has set high council tax increases, and if that proves anything it is that Southend has no case for its claim that it is poorly funded. Consistently good settlements from the Government ensure that all properly run authorities can provide a good service without making excessive demands on the council tax payer.
	The hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech that he did not want to make this into a debate on party politics, but he began by saying that he looked forward to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) taking on the job of Prime Minister following the general election, whenever that comes. I think that, as a member of the Conservative party, he should be a bit more honest to his electorate about the impact on the people on Southend were his party ever to gain power.The Conservatives have pledged to make a £35 billion-a-year cut in public spending, which includes a cash freeze on the money that local authorities would receive—not the 5.4 per cent. increase promised by the Government, but the equivalent of a 4 per cent. cut in next year's budget. The impact on council tax, on services and on all the individuals and organisations that signed the scroll would be devastating.
	The hon. Gentleman has regularly come to the House demanding more money for his council, and as he rightly said that is an entirely legitimate and appropriate role for a constituency Member. He must, however, ask himself whether his request for more money bears examination, given that his party—which he hopes will become the Government—would cut his authority's grants significantly.
	The hon. Gentleman made a specific point about the population estimates. He said that the estimate for Southend by the Office for National Statistics was inaccurate. When calculating formula grant applications, the Government use the best and most up-to-date data available on a consistent basis, across all authorities. In the case of population, they are the 2003 mid-year estimates produced by the ONS. The calculation involved in population estimates is a matter for the ONS, and queries about their derivation and accuracy should be raised directly with it.
	We have always been clear about the fact that we would issue an amending report for the 2003–04 and 2004–05 settlements if the ONS revised the population estimates. It is only fair that authorities receive the correct amount of grant relative to the updated population estimates. Indeed, we consulted on options for the amending reports last summer. Revised population estimates were published by the ONS in September 2004 following the completion of its 2001 census-based local authority population studies. Southend is one of the authorities that the ONS investigated as part of that work. After consideration of all the analysis, the ONS concluded that no adjustment should be made for Southend.
	Amending reports must be made by the end of the financial year following the year of the report. As hon. Members will know, the 2003–04 amending report has now been made. We have decided to postpone the issuing of the amending report for 2004–05 until next year to ensure that all possible revisions to the data used in the 2004–05 settlement are included.
	Using new census data in the funding formula is not a simple task. It is technically incorrect to update the census data, for example, in the police formula. In other areas, the changes needed to incorporate the 2001 census data would break the formula freeze and could cause large changes to the distribution of formula spending share.
	We will look to incorporate 2001 census data into the funding formula once the formula freeze has ended. That formula freeze is designed to give stability over a three- year period. We are in the final year of that freeze. We will look at the formula, now that the three-year period is coming to an end, when we come to the next three-year period, but to say that the population statistics are inaccurate is a matter, as I say, for the ONS. However, we have used the most up-to-date statistics that are available to us.
	The hon. Gentleman read at length from the speech of Councillor Howard Briggs, who is intending to resign. Indeed, he wrote to me on 8 December telling me that Southend was considering setting a council tax increase not of 5.8 per cent. but of 9 per cent., and he asked for an assurance that his authority would not be capped.
	Would the hon. Gentleman have supported a 9 per cent. increase in council tax for next year, given that there is an above-inflation increase of 4 per cent. in the grant, plus all the specific grants I have mentioned, which Southend council is to receive? I suspect that he would not support that, but I do not know. Running a large council is a difficult job that many would shirk from given the demands. However, given the extra funding that the Government have provided for local government, it is a task that can be undertaken with purpose and confidence.
	I have mentioned the budget increase of 5.25 per cent. that is planned by the council for next year. I was asked by Councillor Briggs whether we would consider not capping the council tax increase. No decisions on capping have been taken, but we have made it clear that we expect to see an average council tax increase of less than 5 per cent. and will take even tougher capping action next year if that proves necessary. The Deputy Prime Minister will take decisions on capping after authorities have set their budgets for 2005–06.
	I have talked about the statistics and the extra money available. I have talked about how we do not want to see council tax increases being consistently above the national average or, indeed, above inflation, as we have seen in Southend. There is one other big important agenda, which will free resources for local government to deploy on the front line: our proposals on greater efficiency in delivering services in local government.
	We recognise that local government is efficient in many ways and want to support existing efforts to develop and to apply best practice across all local authorities.
	We believe that there is scope for achieving efficiency gains of at least 2.5 per cent. per annum in local government to deliver efficiencies of at least £6.45 billion by 2007–08. Higher gains may be attainable. Importantly, those efficiency savings are retained by the authority. That is 7.5 per cent. over three years in Southend, half of which will be productivity improvements, half of which we expect to be cashable—to be spent on other services or, indeed, if the council chooses, to keep the council tax down.
	The efficiency agenda is important for councils such as Southend. It is an opportunity for local authorities to free up as much resource as possible to redirect that resource to front-line services or to keep council tax low. Crucially, efficiency is not about cutting services. It has to generate genuine savings in the ways that the council operates to free up resources for use in the ways I have described. The regional centres of excellence will play an important role in supporting local authorities to identify and to deliver efficiency gains.
	I understand why the hon. Gentleman comes back repeatedly to the House to plead on behalf of his authority. As the local Member of Parliament, he is more than entitled to do so, but I emphasise to him and to his constituents that they have had very good grant increases over the previous two years and next year, that successive council tax increases will not be tolerated and that, were his party to get into power, he would have to explain to his constituents why they would receive a cash freeze to their grant settlement in future years.
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Eight o'clock.